|
Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
After perusing the "why are people leaving in droves" thread, and chancing upon a debate on the ARRSE website, I thought it worth raising here.
Is it time for an Armed Forces Federation, with the necessary prohibitions on withdrawal of labour etc that would maintain military capability? My view is that there is enough disquiet at cutbacks to generate some momentum towards a move. Membership of such a federation would not be contrary to QRs and the establishment of such a body was recommended by the Council of Europe, so even if the MoD opposed such a unilateral move, their scope for action would be limited. Naturally, at the outset, office-holders would be best limited to ex-serving and reservists, and those with careers in terminal decline! Of course, the ideal solution would be for the MoD to set up such a body, but the prospect of an alternative viewpoint without rose-tinted specs would perhaps not appeal... Any thoughts? http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/.../start=75.html |
Re: Federation?
The ADF has had one for a while. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but look here to see what it is all about nowerdays
http://www.arffa.org.au/ membership is voluntary and not against the law. |
Re: Federation?
Sensationalism apart I think the idea has a great deal of merit.
On the one side the boys and girls would have a recognised body to address their concerns to apart from - dare I say it - Pprune! This would allow the Service to have instant access to information on what's causing the troops to allegedly 'leave in their droves', without having to pay a consultant to tell them the bleeding obvious! More sensitive trends could be dealt with in-house without the need for the Sun et al to fish for headlines here. Inclusion of a non-strike clause would keep everyone happy, but a federation would also be able to speak for the masses on pay, conditions etc. With a small membership fee it could even fund itself so it's a win-win! This of course presumes anyone gives a stuff - to which the evidence is leaning (no pun intended) to 'not'. |
Re: Federation?
This would be an ideal role for RAFA. They already have a structure in place and as welfare is bankrolled by the RAF Benev' Fund, it would give RAFA a better defined role.
|
Re: Federation?
Unfortunately, whilst I am a fan of the activities of RAFA, the hierarchy may be a little out of touch (my opinion only). I have seen other 'interested' parties 'go in to bat' with all good intention (ie RSL of Aus) only to ruin the 'modern' wishes of the masses by adopting a policy and stating an opinion that was antiquated & not necessarily those of CURRENT serving members.
|
Re: Federation?
Originally Posted by L J R
Unfortunately, whilst I am a fan of the activities of RAFA, the hierarchy may be a little out of touch (my opinion only).
This would have to be a totally new direction for RAFA and possibly its saving grace. With dwindling membership and duplication of effort (RAFBF), RAFA is already struggling for survival. |
Re: Federation?
Servicemen and women nowadays need a voice with clout. The chain of command no longer looks after their welfare and aspirations adequately. A federation of some sort is an interesting possibility.
Just as important is their representation in parliament. I always felt disenfranchised while I was serving. If I was able to use a postal or proxy vote, the MP in question never had relevance to or interest in me. I believe the services are a large enough constituancy to merit having their own MPs. It would then not matter that we have no fixed abode and we would be properly represented by someone who would be held accountable at the ballot box and who might also understand something about service life and ethos. |
Re: Federation?
And perhaps 'federation reps' would be able to assist those victimised by the various kangaroo courts of dubious legitimacy which still exist in the military? For example, they can write all sorts of untruths which they use as 'evidence' and yet the victim isn't even allowed a copy. Even if proven untrue by direct proof, such 'evidence' will still be used against the victim; tehcnically it is surely libel if proven untrue and slander if also stated in front of any witness?
|
Re: Federation?
Nil Nos The Spear Chucker would be a good rep methinks. That'd put a cat amongst the silk curtains.:E
|
Re: Federation?
Sadly I think the time may be fast approaching where a Federation becomes essential. I have always been against such a move but the tide is turning. It needs to be Tri Service so no to RAFA (which is really an old comrades association). It needs primarily to voice concern over terms and conditions of Service, and act on behalf of its members rather than become a political lobby group pushing to maintain the size of the Forces or preserve a particular role or capability. To be successful it must be clearly apolitical.
In the past we have always allowed the Personnel Staff to act as both poacher and gamekeeper - on the one hand looking out for our interests in the AFPRB debate and on allowances and then on the other 'policing' the application of policy to make sure nobody kicks the ar$e out of the system through abuse. Now, with Service Personnel Policy being firmly in the hands of the Civil Service, I believe we need an idependent voice. Whether it should be extended to righting the perceived wrongs that BEags mentions is another issue. Once again there is a role here (and some professional sub groups such as ATC have used their Guild to good effect in fighting cases) but whether this is for the 'Federation' or some other body I'm not so sure. This route begins to question the professional judgement of the chain of command - and while the Boss ain't always right he is always The Boss! To move off that rather simplistic tenet spells the end for military discipline so I would prefer to see a Federation that, initially at least, sticks to arguing our case in the personnel forum. Some form of Professional body is inevitable - the powers that be would do well to embrace the concept early on and shape it. |
Re: Federation?
As some will know, my old man served in the Dark Blue. He was keen on a union of sorts throughout his career, which is probably why he did not make Flag rank. I've got a letter somewhere that he wrote to their Warships in about 1960, making some very valid compalints about his Ts and Cs, particularly about pay. He and my mum had to live like church mice (and him a Lancastrian) on his Lt's pay - as he only had his pay to live on....
|
|
Church mice airborne_artist? You should have seen how we lived on a Yeoman of Signals pay! Dad loved the Navy dearly, but left for the family's sake: in civilian life he became a staunch member of the TGWU and served for years as the local branch secretary. (He'd have become a full time official if he hadn't been too left wing for the Union Leadership's liking.)
All three arms of the military have needed representation for many years. As Shagster pointed out, the RAFA have a ready made organization but regardless of the increase in serving members, we (I include myself) are far too out of touch with present conditions to be of any real help. The only way you're going to get a federation is to organize yourselves. There is the rub. |
Parliamentary Question, House of Lords, 23 Jan 06
Thought you guys might be interested to read this topical Parliamentary Question and Answer, from the HoL on Monday.
Armed Forces: Welfare Lord Garden asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether there is any bar to serving members of the Armed Forces forming an association along the lines of the Police Federation. [HL3245] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The Police Federation of England and Wales was established by the Police Act 1919, under which it has a statutory responsibility to represent its members in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. There is no similar basis under which members of the Armed Forces could form an association along these lines. There are however a number of alternative processes in place to ensure members of the Armed Forces can express their views on matters which affect their service or their welfare. There are regular surveys to monitor welfare matters, and it is an integral part of the duty of our chain of command to look after the welfare and well-being of their people. Individuals have the right to complain about any matter relating to their service to the Defence Council. Further modernisation of the complaints process is being proposed, including the introduction of an independent element as part of the Armed Forces Bill. Make up your own minds! Regards Ginseng |
Blacksheep
I'd be guessing that my Dad was earning not much more than a YoS. He was an RN Lt at the time, with about 4 years seniority. I know that by the time I was in the Andrew a Fleet Chief was on almost exactly the same as a Lt Cdr on promotion. As an aside, at the beginning of my second year as a Midshipmite my pay went from £2,600 to £4,500 - not because the Admiralty valued my (non-existant) skills, but because Maggie gave us the entire 35% pay award in one go - and I started getting the training rate of flying pay. |
Grauniad has picked it up... Angry soldiers demand 'trade' federation
|
It seems that the UK isn't alone in suffering overstretch or facing recruiting and retention problems....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm |
The Retired Officers Association is a tested model that could be used.
It is triservice and has volunteers who are elected to various offices. ROs are all in employment by the crown, same as regulars, and many wear uniform and perform identical functions to their regular colleagues. The difference is they are outside the military food chain and can operate on behalf of their members regardless of which TLB their member works for. If the regulars had a similar association you might have a Naval 4-ring who could be approached by an army officer who had a problem. You then have a disinterested party who can tackle the appropriate command. Where this model may breakdown is the sheer size of the regular manpower pool and the potential for enough cases to become a full time job. That being the case the Association might have to pay for full-time staff too. There is no case however for 'union meetings' 'do we agree to fight or shold we tippytoe away type.' 'Or but the S'nt Major told me to get me 'air cut, its an infringement of me human rights.' The role of the association would be limited to ensuring that the current rules, as writ, are fair and properly applied. Where a properly written rule is patently unfair then the association could challenge it. |
It is getting harder for the mass of the RAF to get general messages across to the heirarchy. Redress is too specific and relates to an individual. It's also a big step to take. PVR is a mixed message. The CGAT gets the answers to the questions that it sets itself and has no personal touch. The disbandment of the AFBLT and it's replacement by a CAS forum (1 to date, I believe, to a selected audience) only serves to widen the gap. From the many open straw polls I have been involved in the general view has always been opposed to a federation (reflecting my own view) but there is an inevitability about this and we owe it to ourselves and future Servicemen/women to make sure we get it right. A rabid dog or toothless tiger will serve no-ones interests.
|
Interesting debate this one..
We do need some kind of representation, I thought the CASWO was supposed to fufill this function for the OR side but to date I've never seen or heard of him doing anything. Don't even know who he is. Ultimately, will the policy makers and bosses take a blind bit of notice of anything the 'Federation' says. Very unlikely when it has no way of putting pressure on said bosses and policy makers. I also feel that anyone within the service would find life very uncomfortable should they try to set one up unless it was under 'guidance' from the powers-that-be. We are all aware of the fear culture prevalent in the service nowadays (must toe the party line, must swallow the management speak, mustn't rock the boat) that anyone attempting to set this up would be committing career suicide. Certainly PVR is not the weapon it used to be, especially not for OR's and SNCO's. I think that 'they' are actually trying to encourage it amongst the more experienced members of the service. Nice idea, but I don't think anything will come of it. Anyone know anything of the 'work to rule' that supposedly happened in the 70's at some RAF Bases. Some old sweats told me about it but I was never sure whether it was true or not? |
sooms
I think it would take a brave man to stick his head up and, even in 2006, effectively challenge the establishment, although I would bet that he/she would get surreptitious support from 'a few good men' who have made it to the Stars, seen the need, but not wanted to risk their careers. I've said before that if the Service is clever they could influence the way a Federation is formed, rather than just put up with something that is one day inevitable. With vision (there's some bait) the command chain could positively benefit from a two-way communications structure that could avoid embarrassing newspaper articles and bypass career-obsessed middle managers who fear for their futures were they to report bad news. I can't help thinking some 'stretched and deficiency' new stories are actually welcomed at times by the hierarchy as I doubt they have a great deal of two-way debate with the cabinet. No matter how we look at the need, we can do business better - our people are being treated consistently badly, be it domestically in the state of Public accommodation, or professionally with ill-conceived fads like IiP et al. We're also locked in an eternal battle of change for the sake of change where some see any change as a qualification for promotion, paying scant regard to longer-term harm after they have gone - we have to arrest that trend! If nothing else a federation could improve communication both ways rather than misunderstanding the issue with U Need 2 Know - I want to know about real issues affecting ME, not read propaganda about helicopter ops at Boscastle. UN2K quickly turned into just another means to transmit RAF News-type stories, losing readership and thus the initiative. Most command decisions are, I believe, extensively thought out but its clear from the cross-topic posts on Pprune that an intelligent audience is being starved of anything except 'you will now all do A because we say so'. In fact Pprune has been my primary - certainly most consistent, timely and accurate - source of intra-service information for a few years now! We must market ourselves internally too and not just spend with gay abandon on short-term external recruitment programmes that will leave those who fall for it wondering what they've been sold. Today's recruits may initially be fooled, but the magic won't last and they won't stay. Much as it is easy to criticise 'them', the RAF(TM!) is still made up of a majority of talented individuals who, no matter their misgivings, are keen to get the mission done. But extraneous nonsense is not the mission. Unless we radically assess our organisation as a whole - almost go back to Year One and restructure with the end product the main focus - our primary role will remain 50% harder than it necessarily needs to be. Peripheral activities, introduced by those with vested interests, must not be allowed flourish at the cost of manpower and resources diverted from air operations. When I go - and I'm convinced I have to now - I'll miss the people and their enthusiasm, including the oft-maligned yoof, but worry for their futures. A federation can say things like this - capture the intangible mood on the streets of our bases - and report back so policy can be developed consultatively when situations allow, reducing the number of occasions that command's well-conceived ideas result in just another session of eye-rolling in workplaces across the UK. |
Sooms
IIRC it happened at Kinloss and Lossie when elements of TG5 where downbanded following a pay review. Again, IIRC there was a spate of 24hr postings. There is a similar issue now with pay 2000 where a JSJET pay evaluation results in some trades such as FS TG11 being put in the low band and their Sgts in the high. A 2 thou or so pa pay difference. One FS asked me what offence he could commit to get busted as it would mean a huge pay rise. Then theres the new pension, (see also the thread on PAS,) where the maximum transfer on 6 Apr this year is 35 years. Personnel with more than that behind them have simply lost it. But a taste of the issues that need addressing by someone, somehow. |
What would the European Courts decide? That EFFECTIVE representation WITHOUT fear of punishment SHOULD be " a basic human right?
Even members of the Armed Forces are still citizens in the end... |
I'd like to see an Armed Forces' MP. Not somebody from the constituency I reside in temporarily, who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in his/her short-term population. Someone with a nationwide responsibility to represent the interests of servicemen/women at Westminster. After all how many of us are now serving in the constituency they voted in at the last election?
|
One route I have seen used in the past has been the distaff route where hubby can deny all knowledge.
Mountbatten was shafted by a linney's wife at Cottesmore - she contacted the Sun and M had to miss a two-week fishing jolly. Stn Cdr at Cottesmore was livid as he got it in the neck too. Shame :} Then kipper fleet Flt Eng's partner managed to get a PQ. Didn't do the chap any good but he built my daughter a rocking horse (no **** major) while waiting for his papers. And another kipper fleet pilot converted to Shacks. She kicked up a stink but again it made no difference. In each case it went to the top but only the Sun route worked. |
The 'Armed Forces' MP' role that you describe is actually part of the remit of the House of Commons Defence Committee - and by and large they do a good job. If you're really interested look up the records of their proceedings in Hansard or as reported in the better newspapers.
|
Originally Posted by Impiger
The 'Armed Forces' MP' role that you describe is actually part of the remit of the House of Commons Defence Committee - and by and large they do a good job.
Grunt |
HCDC is a very positive voice on behalf of the men and women in dark/light blue and green.
However, it is largely ignored by HMG. For example, HCDC have pressed for an independent complaints commission for the Armed Forces and have been ignored. HCDC were also very critical over the pension changes and the lamentable lack of consultation. I believe that Committee member (and much-missed) Rachel Squire MP used the term "stabbed in the back" with reference to a certain (unlamented) former Secretary of State. There is little effective Parliamentary scrutiny over the Armed Forces and the forthcoming Bill seeks to lessen the limited oversight (offered by the annually-renewed Service Discipline Acts) even further. |
Hey Grunt - raw nerve or something? Have you ever spoken to any member of the HCDC? I have and believe me they do 'by and large' do a good job for the collective welfare of soldiers sailors and airmen - no they don't do individual casework - which your MP might - but they do have our best interests at heart. Jess the Dog is right about their comments on the new Pension - they also comment on the quality of our kit, and the absence thereof. Go read some of their reports and then see if you still hate them!
|
Armed Forces Federation - Battle Drums being Beat
Read all about it here -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...190144,00.html Now, I am not one of those pinko softie left wing commie striking types, but does anyone else feel that this is a thourghly good idea? :ok: More here : http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/start=0.html The 10 Point Plan. 1. A professional staff association is to be formed for members of Her Majesty’s Forces under the provisional title of the BRITISH ARMED FORCES FEDERATION (BAFF). 2. Comparable bodies have for years served the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States and Australia, with official cooperation and no negative impact on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services. It will meet all requirements of British military and other law, including international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom. 3. The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel. 4. The federation will be a democratic representative institution answerable to its members. Membership of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure on individuals to join. 5. Within resources, the activities of the federation may include: (a) professional and career development by the provision of education and information; (b) liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the Services, in Parliament, in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector which have a specific impact on forces personnel; (c) appropriate advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement and all other areas of personnel support; (d) appropriate support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service (the federation will not normally comment on any specific case within the systems of military justice and administrative discipline); and (e) the negotiation for members of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts or affinity deals. 6. The federation will not be beholden to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest. While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust, adequately-funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party basis. 7. The federation will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members in their federation-related activities within the agreed code of conduct. 8. The federation will not seek to supplant the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members to appropriate sources of advice or assistance. 9. Work is already under way on matters such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and staffing. A business plan is being prepared. 10. This draft statement of intent outlines the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence. |
I think the idea is excellent but have little confidence in the execution. Another 'Joint' venture 'run' by the Army, does not sound too great so far. Very broad agenda, is it feasible? How is it going to be funded? How will it be policed? We don't need a Trade Union type disaster where it is hijacked by the militants. Don't let the good Mr Collins near it as it would spell disaster for the RAF types. (Don't dismiss it, I can see him being a prime candidate from the Army point of view).
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity. Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck. |
Originally Posted by BellEndBob
I think the idea is excellent but have little confidence in the execution. Another 'Joint' venture 'run' by the Army, does not sound too great so far. Very broad agenda, is it feasible? How is it going to be funded? How will it be policed? We don't need a Trade Union type disaster where it is hijacked by the militants. Don't let the good Mr Collins near it as it would spell disaster for the RAF types. (Don't dismiss it, I can see him being a prime candidate from the Army point of view).
Slightly depressing TV 'launch' with serving personnel hiding their identity. Cynical? Definitely but a sound idea and I wish them/you luck. Not to get anyone confused, I am not involved in the org, but as with yourself, find the idea a breath of fresh air, as I have increasingly felt of late that the front line guys are lacking a significant voice in terms of equipment and more significantly welfare of troops on det,.especially in this politically correct pseudo press led world we live in. Just thought the wider PPrune audience would like to know about scheme and that it appears as if its off the ground. |
Does BAFF have a website yet?
|
Andrew Gilligan discovers disturbing new evidence of how wounded Iraq veterans are being abandoned, If this 'Federation' has anything to contribute to such situations, then its probably worthwhile. But I'm reminded of the expression... "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it." |
There is considerable interest in this issue on the ARRSE website. Many think "enough is enough" and are fed up of being told by MoD spin doctors and deceitful ministers that all in the garden is rosy, when the Mk 1 eyeball can detect quite clearly it is not.
The public and Parliament will listen to an independent voice, which will provide a counterbalance to cost-cutting spin which sees TA soldiers without the medical care they deserve, the penny-pinching refusal to fit suppressive foam systems and so on. The Parliamentary Armed Forces Bill Committee and the House of Commons Defence Committee are interested in this initiative, as minutes of their meetings indicate. There is also keen media interest (and there has been since earlier this year). The 10 point plan indicates the direction of the Federation - not a union - which should encourage all in uniform - at least, those who don't have their snouts in the Whitehall trough! MoD cannot prevent this initiative from happening and have admitted as much, and the Bett report of some years back recommended a Federation if there was demand. Go for it! :) |
Where do I sign up? :D
|
DESERTION
Setting up of BAFF appears quite timely. Proposed legislation on desertion in Armed Forces Bill;
Clause 8: Desertion 60. Under this clause desertion is committed if a person subject to service law is absent without permission and either intends: not to return at all, or to avoid service on operations against an enemy, service abroad on operations to protect life or property or service on military occupation of a foreign country or territory. 61. It is an offence whether the person has the necessary intention at the time of going absent or develops the intention later. 62. The maximum sentence for desertion is generally two years' imprisonmentin the second bullet above, or if his intention is to avoid such service.. But the maximum is life imprisonment if the offender deserts when on service, or under orders to go on service, of the types described Are they getting a bit twitchy? Life imprisonment for avoiding the Iraq war? Nice one. I can think of one politician who deserves life imprisonment ahead of any soldier. |
Bring on the BAFF...!
A BAFF is long overdue - and its an organisation that the new boys are going to need far more than the old hands - once upon a time all servicmen had a degree of respect from the government! Now we're just the toys of a spoilt leadership who is more likly to throw the broken pieces away rather than try to fix 'em! :*
|
Potentially a very useful organisation - not just for the membership.
Presuming the very highest senior officers do give a sh!t they can both listen to the Fed in the absence of middle management telling them the truth and potentially then get a grip of the situation earlier! Provided it's not politicised or, dare I say it RAFA-cised, with little relevance to today's RAF, it can only do good. By that I mean long-term good as opposed to brushing over issues in the tabloids. I'd join tomorrow and certainly not because of the rebel shock factor. |
It will be a sorry day when we have to rely on a federation to represent us. Whether that day has arrived I am not sure, but what concerns me is that any sort of organisation that 'represents us' may simply be used by those with an interest to distract from the real source of our gripes.
Who is responsible for the fire brigades' debacle? We may think it's the Gov't, but many (judging by this Forum) blame the FBU (or at least their former leader). Just a thought. How soon would problems in the military be attributed (at least in part) to the 'Federation'? STH |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.